gulp

my basic way into anarchism might be framed like this: in virtue of what, precisely, does michael bloomberg have the right to tell me what i can and cannot drink? i simply reject - or rather, refute - all candidate justifications, starting with the idea that i've agreed to abide with what elected officials proclaim; i'm telling you that i have not. i don't recognize the epistemic authority of the researchers to whom bloomberg appeals. the idea that he represents the majority will - if such a notion makes any sense - is one i regard with indifference: what most people believe, as i have actually proven, is less likely to be true than its negation. he has no more right to tell me what to drink than i have to tell him, and if by the democratic miracle he has become everybody, i assert that everybody doesn't have any more right to tell me what to drink than i have to tell everybody. but i will make a deal: i'll let you tell me what to drink, michael, if you let me tell you what to think. however, once you think along the lines i will prescribe, you will have somewhat more respect for the autonomy, dignity, and equality of persons.